37 yo approx 600k. Started working in pharma when I was 22 and maxed out my 401k since then and have had a few nice market runs. I will admit that I have a financial planner(dad's guy) who has been managing my 401k since I started, so I can't take credit for choosing the funds and the percentages in each.

This is obviously a self-selected group of people who are reasonably pleased with their 401k balances. The fact that there has been only 8 responses in over one month suggests to me that most people are sucking wind or have already cashed out.

It seems possible to me. If they had a solid company match, were aggressive since they started young, and if they had any company shares at a company bought out like genentech et al it is very probable they could be in the 600's. I'm 40, I was ultra aggressive in my 20's and 30's, and I worked at amgen for most of my career, and I too have a financial professional activley managing my 401k and I'm still over 500k in my 401k. So it's not as impossible as u think.

Number 9 seems plausible for you. Also considering your aggressive investing strategy, I'm guessing that if you have $500K in your 401K today that you probably had about $700K in it about one year ago and took a major hit.

43 years old, with 250k in my 401k plus another 225k equity in a business I own. The plan is that I will retire in 6 years and the business will provide 50k+ in income pluse 25k in pension. The 401k is not the only way to go, it is all about income streams.

Number 9 seems plausible for you. Also considering your aggressive investing strategy, I'm guessing that if you have $500K in your 401K today that you probably had about $700K in it about one year ago and took a major hit.

Click to expand...

Actually I didn’t take that much of a hit…that’s why we pay a financial planner/asset manager. They don’t allow 401k funds to wallow around to underperform or become vulnerable. They are constantly playing with it so when things started going south they got out of a lot of things and went into a protective mode. If you make more than 150K a year you should have a financial planner from a reputable firm, not the “big box” national firms like Amex, or Ed Jones, or god forbid your bank. Find a good private firm in your area. It has done wonders for our financial picture.

Per #13, if you can find a good financial planner/asset management advisor, then go for it. Here's my bias. The 1980's and 1990's created an entire class of "high net worth" individuals, i.e. those with at least $1,000,000 in investible assets. From this sprang an entire industry of "wealth management" advisors, many of whom were former brokers who took a weekend course in financial planning. It was clear that there was much more money to be made as a fee-based "wealth advisor" than commission-based broker. I just saw my dad write a $37,000 check to his asset manager and almost cried, since I could advise him just as well. My belief is that the need for an asset manager should be based not on you net worth but on the complexity of your financial situation. In my case, I have no dependents, no outstanding debts, no college 529, no real estate, no estate other than my liquid assets. For this I think I can manage my own assets. The new breed of wealth advisors want you cradle to grave, starting pre-natally with a college 529 plan up through doing your estate plan and everything in between. No thanks. I'll handle it myself.